December 13, 2017

Here's the fourth in our series of so-called "Best of 2017." A reminder: just because these are the best of 2017 doesn't mean they're any good.

Let's face it. Most of what we ad people do is really dopey.

I wasn't much of a creative person, but I've had the good fortune to
know some great ones. There is one thing about them that I love.

They work hard and have high standards, but they also have an enduring sense of how silly the whole thing is.

It takes a special kind of intelligence to be diligent
about what you do and yet keep the part of your brain alive that
realizes it's largely ridiculous.

There is a great deal of nonsense in the advertising business and I
think it's very healthy to appreciate the absurdity. All the somber
imbeciles who think that what they're doing is terribly important need a
good solid whack in the golden globes.

I think I blame it all on conferences. There are way too many fucking
conferences. I go to a lot of these conferences because I'm one of the
speakers and I get paid. But if I didn't, I wouldn't (I think this is
what's called "biting the hand...")

Most of the people who speak are so fucking serious. I'm sorry but after
sitting through 8 hours of “The Programmatic Real-Time Digital Insider
Summit” you can't help but want to go to your room and watch a good
hockey fight. Or go to the bar and start one.

I suspect the reason we lost the war on drugs can be laid at the feet of
marketing conferences. How can thousands of people every day sit
through these things if they're not high?

I know why people go to conferences. They think anything's better than a
day at the office. But they're wrong. They wind up getting the worst of
both worlds. They pay for the conference but wind up standing outside
the ballroom all day talking on their cell phones to the same dipshits they
were trying to escape in the first place.

I know what my great creative friends would do to solve this problem. They'd have backwards conferences. They'd start the day with the cocktail party and then have the presentations.

It's really quite simple. The grander the "brand purpose," the less
specific the strategy. The less specific the strategy, the blander the
advertising.

My favorite example of the power of specificity was Apple's introduction of the iPod. They didn't give it the vanilla, global "World Class MP3 Player" treatment. They said "1,000 Songs In Your Pocket." They were specific. They talked about the virtues of the product, not woolly melodramatic horseshit

My direction to the creative teams who worked for me was always the same
- be specific. Today the objective is to ignore the specific and
"ladder up" the benefit.

In the idiotic world of "laddering-up," every piece of chewing gum,
every vacuum cleaner bag, and every can of sugar water is purported to "make life better and the world a better place."

Specificity has died because it's too sales-y. It doesn't have sufficient virtue or globularity.

It seems that every big brand is instituting its own flavor of the same strategy:

"We're inclusive and committed. Our products are for every type of
person in the whole darn global world and our awesome universal values
prove it."

Why has the ad industry given up on specificity in favor of globularity?
First, it flatters the self-absorbed client. She loves to hear
wearisome bullshit about how her yogurt is changing the world.

Second, it's so much easier. By insisting on the default strategy of
universality - including every type of person and every cultural
stereotype - they find themselves creating not the best possible
advertising but the least objectionable advertising. And selling the
least objectionable advertising to their corporate overseers is a much
easier task.

Another consequence of this fuzzy thinking is that it leads marketers to
focus on silly fantasies like "millennialism" -- huge swaths of people
who are presumed to have a uniform "global" identity.

Then, instead of doing the hard work of differentiating the product,
they just hold up a mirror and try to tell us who we are and how they
are just like us.

This type of spineless, watery exercise in tedious whacking-off usually
leaves very little of a strategic or creative nature to argue over. Just
show every kind of person engaged in every kind of virtuous activity.
And the result is that the conversation quickly turns to something
everyone can have a fine old time arguing about - media choices.

It's no wonder "global" brands are obsessed with media. It's the only
thing left to them. When it comes to strategy or creative, the only
issue is which key to sing "We Are The World" in.

December 07, 2017

The great thing about the future is that it can't be fact-checked. In our second "Best of 2017" post, we take a look at why the future is so popular among the keynote speaking set.

When I'm shooting my mouth off at some conference the question I get
most frequently is this, "What's the future of advertising?"

I have no fucking idea what's going to happen 10 minutes from now, how
the hell am I supposed to know what's going to happen "in the future,"
whenever the hell that is? For all I know, someday someone might click
on a banner ad. Who knows?

But conference goers and press reporters can't help asking that question. They've been trained to do this by marketing yappers.

You see, marketing gurus are usually so confused by all the horseshit
generated by their industry that they can't even figure out what's
happening now. So they've learned to hide in the future.

The great thing about talking about the future is that you don't have to
know anything. You just make shit up and nobody can refute it.

And when the future comes, who's going to remember the baloney you
predicted 10 years ago? Meanwhile you make a lot of money and get a lot
of press with impressive sounding horseshit.

This strategy also works great for CMOs...

BOSS: Why is business so shitty?

CMO: Well, we're preparing for the future...

Sadly, when the future shows up 18 months later and business is still
shitty the CMO gets thrown out on his ass and is replaced by some other
nitwit who thinks he knows what the future looks like.

The present, on the other hand, is a dangerous place. It's a place with
actual facts. There's accountability. When you say something about the
present there's a way to check on it. So if you're a buffoon with a
Powerpoint and a bag full of clichés stay away from the present. Nothing
to see here. Head for the future - it's your happy place.

One of my personal policies when I do talks is to never talk
about the future. The present is bad enough. The only time I do so is to
ridicule predictions made by marketing geniuses. Always good for a few
laughs.

I try only to speak about what's currently happening. Not horseshit
about stuff that may or may not happen in 10 years. A good deal of what I
talk about is how different the present is from the once certain
predictions of marketing futurists.

I go to a lot of conferences (hey, it's a living) and I have to listen
to a lot of speakers. It's pretty easy to know pretty quickly who the bullshit artists are. They're
the ones who are telling us what the future is going to be like and
warning us that we'd better be ready for it or we'll be left behind. And
being ready for it usually includes buying into some baloney they're
selling.

The futurists know nothing that you don't know. Well, I'm wrong. They
know one thing - they know how to turn bullshit into a speaking fee.

And they always have an escape valve. When you point out that a
prediction of theirs was 100% dead-ass wrong, they give you this -- "just wait, you'll see."

In other words, they kick the can farther into the future. It's a no-lose proposition.

December 06, 2017

Since it's December and I'm a lazy-ass bastard, it's a good time to re-publish a series of "best ofs." One of these years I'm going to do a "worst of" but I'm afraid it would go on for months. Anyhow, here's the first of this year's "best ofs" from last January. It's about BBDO winning "Social Media Agency Of The Year."

Six years ago, I wrote a good post (yeah, there've been a couple) called "Social Media's Massive Failure." I was denounced as an idiot and a Luddite dinosaur.

Of course I was and still am. Notwithstanding that, my post was correct.

Since
then I've squealed and whined extensively about the infantile delusion
that social media marketing is based on -- the silly idea that consumers
want to have conversations with and about brands and share their brand
enthusiasms with the world.

I've also written a lot about Facebook cleverly giving up
on the fantasy of social media marketing and becoming a traditional
media company, selling as many paid ads as they can stuff on a page.

Well, now things have come full circle.

A few weeks ago MediaPost named BBDO as its "Social Media Agency Of The Year." For what? For not doing social media.

"The solution:
Utilize Facebook not as a social network, but a 'media channel.'"

Apparently
BBDO woke up this year and told its clients to stop wasting their money
on "conversations" and "sharing" and start running ads on Facebook.

To
appreciate how fucking insane our business has become, you have to read
the way MediaPost ties itself into knots trying to make something
brilliant out of a conclusion so obvious that even an account planner
could have come up with it.

"The strategy was built on a key insight that while Facebook's overall reach continues to expand, the
relative effectiveness of “organic” reach for big brands has been diminishing proportionately."

You know what that bullshit means, right? Here's the translation: Social media doesn't work and you have to advertise.

But
if you want to work in our business you can't just come out and say
that. You need to hide it under steaming piles of jargon. Otherwise, you
might lose your job for being "traditional."

No, you have to do what MediaPost does -- take the obvious and make it incomprehensible.

Anyone
with a pulse and an IQ above 20 knows that social media marketing is
largely a pile of horseshit and the only way to get any value out of
Facebook is to buy ads.

But if you know how to write a
bullshit "manifesto" or "white paper," and you can further torture the
already horrifying language of our industry by tossing in large words
with small meanings, you can become "social media agency of the year" by
not doing social media.

If the ad business didn't already exist no one would believe it could.

November 29, 2017

"The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies...provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones....Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs."

Hey, but don't worry. You're in charge. It says so everywhere - "the consumer is in charge."

Of all the idiotic utopian nonsense about the web, there is probably nothing to rival this stupidity. They have all the power but we're in charge. Right.

Staggering Variety of Clandestine Trackers Found in Popular Android Apps

Researchers at Yale...have documented the proliferation of tracking software on smartphones, finding that weather, flashlight, ride-sharing, and dating apps...are infested with dozens of different types of trackers collecting vast amounts of information to better target advertising....researchers identified 44 trackers in more than 300 apps for Google’s Android smartphone operating system. The apps, collectively, have been downloaded billions of times.

It was supposed to be democratizing. It was supposed to put power in the hands of the public.

The web is now very little more than a very large, immensely profitable marketing spy agency in which huge global entities follow us around, secretly collect personal information about us, and attempt to monetize our every move.

November 22, 2017

Today I am repeating my annual Thanksgiving post which I have run for many years. And, yes, that Trump line was there years before anyone could have known...Thanksgiving is my kind of holiday.

It doesn't require gods or miracles or tragedies or victories or angels or kings or winners or losers or flags or gifts. All you need is some pumpkin pie, a big-ass flat screen, and a comfortable sofa to drool on.Oh, and a little gratitude. Gratitude,
by the way, is a commodity in very short supply. Regrettably, we seem
to have mountains of expectation but not much in the way of
appreciation. It's a socially transmitted disease. So this Thanksgiving let's put aside harsh judgments for a day or two. Thank a fireman. Give a bum a buck. Kiss an in-law. I
don't like Puritans of any stripe. But I like the idea of them having
the Indians over for dinner. I know the detente didn't last too long,
but any day you're eating sweet potatoes instead of shooting off muskets
is a good day. Be grateful that you have shoes. Be thankful that your cat is healthy. Compliment someone's posture. If you can't do any of that stuff, then at least give thanks that you won't be dining with Whoopi Goldberg or Donald Trump. That alone should be enough. Finally, do yourself a favor -- quit whining. That's my job. And have a Happy Thanksgiving.

November 06, 2017

In this clip, from over 35 years ago, a young, dumb Steve Jobs debates an older, wiser David Burnham, writer for The New York Times (and breaker of the "Serpico" scandal) about the potential dangers of computer spying.

ANA - you even created and celebrated Transparency Day!(Was there a parade? Did you have a Transparency Eve party?)

It seems like transparency is all the rage in the online ad world. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that talkingabout transparency is all the rage.

Because I have a problem with this transparency talk. I think you're all full of shit. I think you people are loud and outraged when you can't get transparency but you become awfully quiet when you're asked to provide it.

You see, there's more to this transparency thing than the petty bickering of CEOs and billionaires. There's also the little issue of the relationship between you and us. Or does the public not figure into your idea of
transparency? Is transparency only an issue when your money is at stake?

Personally, here's what I (and about 7 billion of my friends) would like a little transparency on...

Mr. P&G and Mr. Unilever: I'd like some transparency on the type and the amount of personal, private information about me you have been gathering with your relentless online tracking.

Mr. WPP: Would you mind explaining to me what you and your colleagues in the holding companies are doing with my information?

Mr. Facebook and Mr. Google: If you wouldn't mind, I would like to know what kind of information about me you have been revealing to your clients.

Ms. 4As and Mr. ANA and Mr. IAB: Just curious about who your members have been buying information about me from and selling information to?

I hope you will prove me wrong and be open and transparent about what you've been collecting on me and how you're using it. Because it seems you're very passionate about transparency when you want answers, but not quite so passionate when you're asked to give answers.

If you're really as committed to transparency as you say you are, I would be grateful for a full accounting. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would take your transparency bullshit and stick it up your ass.

October 24, 2017

The current model of online advertising is only 20 years old but it is already far beyond its sell-by date. It has become a ridiculous anachronism, born in an era of naive digital utopianism, and now absurdly outmoded and unsuited to its job.

In no particular order, here are 10 reasons why online advertising must change.

1. Fraud: Online advertising fraud is completely out of control. According to JPMorgan Chase it has grown by over 100% in the past year to over $16 billion. There are no serious impediments to its continued metastasizing. The fraudsters are miles ahead of the feckless cyber-security crowd who are filling their clients full of delusional happy talk. According to the World Federation of Advertisers, within 8 years ad fraud may become the second largest source of criminal income in the world, after drug trafficking.

2. Waste: The amount of money advertisers are wasting on online advertising is astounding. Marc Pritchard, chief brand officer of the world's largest advertiser, Procter & Gamble, says that only 25% of his programmatic budget ever reaches the consumer. The rest is wasted on non-viewable ads, fraud, and the questionable "contributions" of ad tech middlemen. When you add to that the fact that less than 10% of the advertising that does reach consumers is even noticed, you have a waste factor that is beyond belief.

3. Public Disgust: Worldwide disgust over online advertising is reaching a breaking point. People are so fed-up with the annoying, irresponsible, and relentless onslaught of online ads that over 600 million web enabled devices are currently armed with ad blockers. Every credible study ever done has shown that online advertising is the most disliked and distrusted form of advertising. The online ad lobby sold us on the idea that it would be more popular with consumers because tracking would make it more "relevant." What a joke that argument has turned out to be. In one study consumers were asked about 13 different types of advertising. The 8 most disliked were all forms of online advertising. Unless the current model of online advertising changes, ad blocking -- the mortal enemy of marketers -- will continue its unabated proliferation.

4. Effectiveness: Despite the growth of online advertising, substantial questions are being raised about its effectiveness. These questions are becoming widespread. Click rates are reported to be about 5 per 10,000 ads served. P&G announced that they had cut about $140 million in online ads from their 2nd quarter spending this year during which time their sales grew by 2%. According to The Wall Street Journal the online cuts ..."had little impact on its business, proving that those digital ads were largely ineffective."

5. Brand Safety: Anyone not comatose knows that in the bizarre world of ad tech and programmatic buying advertising can show up anywhere. Regardless of the empty promises of agencies and publishers, advertisers cannot control where their advertising appears. A comical example happened last week. An ad for the Association of National Advertisers, the body that exists to protect and defend the interests of advertisers, showed up on the big, bad, Breitbart website. The ANA, who strongly defend ad tech, looked like complete clowns when they had to apologize for "an unintentional result of a programmatic buy..."

6. Fake news: The online advertising industry is the engine that powers fake news. While most people believe that fake news is related to political operatives looking to deceive, the truth is it is also substantially the result of people looking to make money from a programmatic advertising ecosystem that rewards fraudulent sensationalism. A perfect example of how ad tech supports fake news can be found here. The fact that we have a populace that no longer knows what to believe
from a media industry they once trusted is not an accident. It can be traced largely to online advertising, and specifically ad tech.

7. Degradation of Journalism: Ad tech drives money to the worst online publishers. Ad tech’s value proposition is this: we will find you the highest quality eyeballs at the cheapest possible locations. Ad tech can do this because of “data leakage.” Viewers developed by quality publishers like The New York Times are tagged and followed to crappy websites like kittylittervideo.com and served ads there instead of at the Times' website. This means ad dollars that should be going to quality publishers go to crappy publishers. Now wonder quality publishers are struggling to survive.8. Non-Transparency: In 2017, 90% of advertisers surveyed by the World Federation of Advertisers said they intended to review their agreements with ad tech suppliers. A significant reason for this overwhelming show of no confidence was a damning report issued by the ANA in the U.S. which demonstrated that many advertisers had no idea how their money was being spent or how they were being charged for online advertising services. The more complex a system is the more opportunities there are for unscrupulous actors to find devious ways to extract money. The programmatic ad buying ecosystem is beyond complex -- it's insane.

9. Corruption: Along with the problem of non-transparency, the ANA report also asserted that corruption was "pervasive" in the online advertising ecosystem. Agencies were found to be taking kickbacks and using client money to arbitrage online ad inventory without the knowledge of clients.

10. Public Safety:

“Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual ... So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people.” — Alexander Nix (Chief Executive, Cambridge Analytica), October 2016.

We were taught to fear totalitarian governments. We feared they would know everything about us, follow us everywhere, track our every move, and keep secret files about us which could be used to influence our lives in ways that were only vaguely visible to us. We are well on our way to such a nightmare. Except it isn't our government that knows everything about us, follows us everywhere, tracks our every move, and keeps secret files about us. It is the marketing industry. Advertising used to be about imparting information to the public. Online
advertising has become about extracting information from the public.

If we had set out to create an advertising structure that was a complete fiasco I'm not sure we could have done much better.

The online advertising industry is a preposterous train wreck that must be changed.

October 17, 2017

A few weeks ago, in a blog post entitled "The Battle Of The Century, " I wrote about the lobbying battle that is brewing over the EU's proposed ePrivacy Regulation.

If adopted the ePrivacy Regulation, along with the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) will make it much harder for online marketers and media in the European Union to collect personal private information about users without prior consent. In other words, it will make it hard for them to track us all over the web and collect, exploit, and sell the information they are harvesting without our explicit consent or knowledge.

Last week, another shot in this battle was fired. A consortium of advertising, marketing and media companies sent a misleading and disingenuous letter to the members of the European Parliament attacking one of the core points of the ePrivacy Regulation. I have posted the letter here if you'd like to read it. The lead sentence of the letter reads...

"ePrivacy Regulation threatens data-driven advertising business model of European press publishers and other online media and services."

Before we talk about what's wrong with this assertion, let's talk about what the letter gets right. The letter claims that most of the stuff we like about the web, including news, is made possible by the revenue publishers get from advertising.

This is true. Publishers could not exist solely on the payments they get from users. They also need income from advertisers. However, the letter then goes on to put forward two deceptive arguments.

First they imply that without "data-driven" advertising the revenue to publishers will dry up. This is nonsense. First of all, all advertising is "data-driven." Advertisers have used data for decades to make media decisions about TV, radio, print and every other advertising medium. If this regulation is enacted they will still use data to make decisions about online advertising.

It is not "data" that will be regulated, it is the means by which certain data is collected - involuntary tracking, or spyware. What they won't be able to do is track us without our permission and use data derived from spying on us.

The second assertion has to do with a publisher's right to block users who won't agree to be tracked. The ePrivacy Regulation states that a publisher is prohibited...

"...from denying access to their advertising-funded offerings if users do not consent to data collection needed for data-driven advertising."

In other words, publishers will not be allowed to block you from reading the content of their website if you refuse to be tracked. The letter claims...

"...the ePrivacy Regulation puts into question the ability of publishers and other online services to continue offering a value exchange that affords Europeans access to content and services at little or no cost supported by advertising revenue."

This may not be true at all. As far as I have been able to determine, publishers can still block people who block ads, as they can do now. But they will not be able to block people who refuse to be tracked. The difference is enormous.

Publishers are entitled to some value for their work and efforts. None of us works for nothing, why should publishers? I believe it is a fair exchange for publishers to require users to allow ads in exchange for access to the content or news they publish. It doesn't mean we have to pay attention to the advertising, but we ought to allow it on the page.

When we agree to be exposed to advertising we know what we are agreeing to. But if we are forced to agree to be tracked we do not know what we are agreeing to. We don't know what personal private information is being collected, how it is going to be used, who is going to have access to it, who it may be sold to, or how it will be protected, if at all.

Agreeing to receiving advertising is impersonal. Agreeing to be tracked is wholly personal.

I want to repeat that I am not certain that the ePrivacy Regulation will allow publishers to block people who block ads. But I think it should.

Having to agree to be tracked, however, creates an unfair value exchange in which the publisher knows exactly what he is getting but the consumer has no idea what he is giving up.

In summary, for us to get what we enjoy from from the web we must understand that a great deal of the value is supported by advertising. But the advertising industry must understand that their desire to monetize data about us does not supersede our right to privacy.

The online advertising industry does not need to spy on us in order to thrive. Every other advertising medium has done quite well, thank you, without trampling on democratic principles of privacy and security.

Tracking, surveillance marketing, and the current model of ad tech are affronts to the values of free societies. The ePrivacy Regulation is a sound and reasonable reaction to our industry's inability to exercise a mature degree of restraint or self-control.

October 09, 2017

It has become an article of faith in the marketing business that the future of marketing is about data.

"Data are to this century what oil was to the last one: a driver of growth and change," says The Economist.

Scientific American says, "The digital revolution is in full swing...in
2016 we produced as much data as in the entire history of humankind..."

The primacy of data in marketing has been beaten into us for the past 10 years. In fact, it has become such a platitude that we no longer even stop to think about what it means.

Data sounds very scientific, impersonal and hygienic. But it is not.

When marketers talk about data what they usually mean is personal private information about us that is collected, traded, sold and exploited without our knowledge or consent.

To marketers, data is not all numbers and algorithms. It is your sexual preferences, your religious beliefs or lack thereof, your banking details, your medical and psychological diagnoses, your work history and political preferences. It is thousands of facts about you that you never suspected anyone knew or collected.

It has the potential to be used in a myriad of dangerous ways by any incompetent, irresponsible organization that has the wherewithal to collect it or buy it.

Data is just a bland, emotionless word for some highly sensitive information. It makes the collection of personal private information about us seem to be an inoffensive remote branch of mathematics.

Next time some cliché-spewing marketing-droid blithely repeats the mantra that the future of marketing is all about data, remember this -- data isn't neutral. Data, in the wrong hands, is dangerous.

And we have every reason to believe that the marketing industry is the wrong hands.

October 05, 2017

If you would like an example of how the online ad industry's insatiable lust for "data" - usually just a pleasanter term for personal private information about us - has defiled our society and undermined our right to privacy, look no further than Yahoo.

In my new book, BadMen, I tell the story of how in 2014 Yahoo demonstrated utter disregard for the privacy and security of its users.

Their security chief warned them that their platform was woefully insecure and easily hacked. He recommended a system of end-to-end encryption to protect their users.

The ceo and the board rejected his recommendation because implementing the proper security measures would mean they could no longer scan the emails and text messages of their users and use this information to create targeting opportunities for their advertising clients.

Soon thereafter, half a billion Yahoo accounts were hacked.

But that ain't nothing.

It was revealed yesterday that a year earlier, in 2013, every single Yahoo account -- 3 billion of them -- were hacked. Somehow Yahoo never bothered to fully investigate the extent of the hack.

Earlier, Yahoo had reported that the 2013 hack affected 1 billion accounts - which is bad enough. But an investigation by their new owners - Verizon - revealed that the hack was actually three times larger than Yahoo reported. And, in fact, was the biggest known hack in history.

If I ran the world, Yahoo's ceo and board would be fined $1 per hack and dragged off to jail. But, then again, if I ran the world Yahoo would have been put to sleep years ago.

September 27, 2017

The current model of online advertising -- based on the 3-headed monster of tracking, surveillance marketing, and ad tech -- is unsustainable and will not survive.

The forces against it are building and will shake up the advertising and marketing industries. Here is why it is doomed:

It is too abusive of consumer rights and personal privacy.

As of today, most people are not aware of how effectively the online ad industry is using questionable technology (ad tech) to track their every move. They are not aware that they are the targets of constant and unrelenting surveillance by the advertising and marketing industries. But over time this will change. If nothing else, clever politicians will adopt this as a cause célèbre and, because it is a non-partisan issue (all sides of the political spectrum oppose erosion of privacy), it will resonate with the public.

Smart companies with Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives will get ahead of this wave and insist that their media partners and agencies not utilize ad networks and publishers who secretly track their customers. They will promote this to the public and unlike so many Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives that are tiresome clichés, it is one that will have traction.

It is too laden with fraud and corruption and too wasteful of advertising dollars.

Ad fraud is currently responsible for many billions of dollars of criminal theft. The WFA (World Federation of Advertisers) says that within 8 years ad fraud may become the second largest source of criminal revenue in the world, after drug trafficking. While naive marketers are being told that ad fraud is being controlled, knowledgeable insiders say it is metastasizing.

A large component of ad fraud is enabled by ad tech and programmatic buying. Every credible study I've seen demonstrates that programmatic ad buys (those powered by tracking and ad tech) are far more encumbered by traffic fraud and click fraud.

Sooner or later CFOs and CEOs will come to realize how much money they have lost to online ad fraud and will demand that asleep-at-the-wheel CMOs get off their asses and insist on a better model.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The online ad industry has had a 10-year free ride in which its preposterous assertions and absurd metrics have been swallowed whole by a naive and enchanted advertising industry. Those days are coming to an end.

Although ad agencies are supposed to be protectors and defenders of their clients' media dollars their venal malpractice in promoting and defending the corrupt and fraudulent practices of the online ad industry have been a disgrace. However, grown-ups on the client side are starting to ask the right questions and demand sensible answers.

All the powerful forces (Google, Facebook, Amazon, the 4As, the ANA, the IAB) are currently aligned in favor of tracking. But sooner or later someone with integrity will conclusively demonstrate to advertisers how insanely convoluted and immensely wasteful the current ad tech model is. They will show advertisers how little value they are getting for their ad tech dollar.

It is too dangerous to democratic societies

We were taught to fear totalitarian governments. We feared they would know everything about us, follow us everywhere, track our every move, and keep secret files about us which could be used to influence our lives in ways that were only vaguely visible to us.

We are well on our way to such a nightmare. Except it isn't our government that knows everything about us, follows us everywhere, tracks our every move, and keeps secret files about us. It is the marketing industry.

“Today in the United States we have somewhere close to
four or five thousand data points on every individual... So we model
the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230
million people.”
-Alexander Nix (Chief Executive, Cambridge Analytica), October 2016.

In May the GDPR regulations and perhaps the ePrivacy Regulation will go into effect in Europe. This will make it much more difficult for online advertisers and media entities to collect personal private information about people without their prior consent.

I expect this will create a period of chaos in Europe until the regulators figure out what is working and what isn't and adjust the regulations accordingly. But in the long run it will set a precedent for balancing the privacy rights of individuals against the power of online media and marketers.

It may take a while to raise the consciousness of people here in the US about the dangers of the 3-headed monster, but ultimately it will.

Like a stock market melt down, it's easy to say it's coming, but it's impossible to say when. It could be five months or five years. One thing I'm certain of, however, the current idiotic, wasteful, and corrupt model is doomed.

In Other News...BadMen is now available as an ebook here for just $2.99.

September 25, 2017

Get ready for what could be the PR, lobbying, and regulatory battle of the century as the Goobook (Google and Facebook) duopoly start to realize what the new regulations of the EU (European Union) may mean to their businesses.

In May, a new regulation, called the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) will go into effect. More importantly, something called the ePrivacy Regulation may also go into effect. These regulations will seriously limit the collection of personal information by online entities. In fact, they may cripple substantial parts of their businesses.

Right now, Goobook are essentially in the surveillance business - a business that yields tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually. By tracking us across the web, collecting information about us, and monetizing that information by selling it as targeting data to advertisers, Goobook have essentially taken over the online advertising industry, reaping 77% of online ad revenue in the US.

But things are going to change. Many commentators have suggested that the new EU rules will not materially effect Google and Facebook. Not so says an opinion from a law firm hired by Digital Content Next(DCN) to analyze the likely effect of the ePrivacy Regulation on the duopoly (the doo-wops?)

I have had a look at the opinion and it is startling.

Below are quotes from the legal opinion as well as quotes from the SVP for Government Affairs at DCN.

"... much of the... data on which Facebook and Google currently sit
could lose its value because it could not be used for online behavioral
or targeted advertising purposes..."

"...Google and Facebook’s ability to collect and use consumer data will be dramatically curbed. They would be restricted from targeting advertising based on data from electronic communications services such as WhatsApp, Gmail and Messenger unless they receive consent from all parties involved in the communication. As currently drafted, Facebook would likely be prohibited from using data transmitted from the clicking of a “like” button for the purpose of targeting advertisements."

"...Google and Facebook would be required to get separate consent from consumers before attempting to collect and use browsing history or “personal” data...What’s more – companies would not be allowed to bundle consent for multiple purposes nor require consent as a condition for using a service."

"...companies that collect and use data at smaller scale (such as solely on their owned and operated domains) are likely to be less impacted by this Regulation. These companies will be significantly less challenged in getting the required consent for their limited purposes. As a result, companies that create trusted, premium digital experiences, enjoy direct relationships with consumers and do not rely on tracking consumers at such a large scale may find new leverage and opportunities in the marketplace."

"...no matter what happens, it is highly likely Facebook and Google will need to make major changes to their online behavioral and targeted advertising practices in order to comply with forthcoming EU privacy laws and regulations."

One thing to keep in mind is that the ePrivacy Regulation is currently in draft form, the final language has not been approved, and the regulation has not yet been adopted.

"The key thing to remember is that most of the major players in online advertising have a big stake in surveillance marketing. They will fight like hell to protect tracking."

I expect that in the next six months we will see a battle royal. Google and Facebook will use every trick in the book to try to influence European regulators to take the teeth out of the ePrivacy Regulation. Get ready for an avalanche of horseshit about it being anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-free speech (it's already started) and every other spurious argument they and their advertising industry apologists can pull out of their asses.

When confronted with the unprecedented power and influence of Goobook, we will discover if the European regulators really have balls or if they're just grandstanding.

Meanwhile advertisers, who are already in shock over the fraud, corruption, waste, and non-transparency in online advertising, and have flocked to Google and Facebook as presumed "safe havens," are going to get another shotgun blast to face. They've been living in a fantasyland and it will soon start crumbling.

September 21, 2017

As usual, the tin-eared aristocrats of the ad industry are on the wrong side of an important issue.

Apple is planning to release a new version of its Safari browser with new cookie-blocking technology, called "Intelligent Tracking Prevention." It will put strict limits on the ability of websites and advertisers to track us across the web.

According to digital expert Don Marti it looks like Safari has built a set of features that will help protect us from the kind of tracking we don't like, while not screwing up features we like such as single sign-in to favorite sites (my words, not his.)

Apple has said

“...users feel that trust is broken when they are being tracked and privacy-sensitive data about their web activity is acquired for purposes that they never agreed to.”

Of course, all the major advertising trade bodies are soiling their shorts at the thought of not being able to spy on us everywhere and know everything we do online. They are not satisfied that people are so disgusted with online ad practices that 600 million web enabled devices are now armed with ad blockers.

“Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love...Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful."

What planet do these imbeciles live on? Do they really believe anyone is going to buy that crap?

Here is a study published last year that reports that of 13 different forms of advertising studied, the top 8 most disliked were all forms of online advertising.

Furthermore the argument that Safari's "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" is "...bad for consumer choice..." is laughable. Any idiot who prefers to be followed around the web by assorted squids and slugs is perfectly welcome to download dozens of free web browsers that are more than happy to spy on everything we do.

Every impartial study I've ever seen says the same thing: Online advertising is the most disliked and most distrusted form of advertising. One of the primary drivers of this situation is tracking.

When are the "leaders" of our industry going to get their heads out of their asses and realize how they are destroying the integrity of web advertising by not supporting initiatives like Apple's that are trying to establish responsible guidelines for online advertising?

September 19, 2017

Last week I did a video interview with Australian ad site Mumbrella. Here is an excerpt from that interview that discusses the issues raised in my new book BadMen: How Advertising Went From A Minor Annoyance To A Major Menace.

September 18, 2017

Marc Pritchard -- chief brand officer at the world's largest advertiser, P&G -- has done the advertising industry a great service over the past 15 months.

He is the first grown-up to acknowledge head-on the awfulness of online advertising as it is currently being practiced. Of course, some of us less-than-grown-ups have been writing about it for years, but very little attention is paid to the chirping of people without a $2.4 billion ad budget.

Pritchard has spoken unambiguously about the problems of a murky and often corrupt system of buying and selling online advertising; the scourge of ad fraud; the problem of viewability; the opaque financial dealings of agencies; the issue of brand safety; the head-spinning number of third-party toll takers standing between advertisers and publishers; and the arbitrary and unreliable methods used for measuring ad delivery. He has done an admirable job and deserves praise.

If you're an astute reader you probably feel a "but" coming, and here it comes.

But as far as I can determine Mr. Pritchard has neglected to say a word about the single factor that enables most of these issues - tracking.

Essentially, there is only one thing that differentiates online advertising from all other forms -- and makes it both susceptible to the types of appalling mischief we've experienced and dangerous to a free society -- the relentless tracking of every one of us online.

Advertising used to be about imparting information. Online advertising has become equally about collecting information.

In a recent article, Marketing Week says "Pritchard believes that next generation will be mass one-to-one
marketing. That is the promise digital has always held, but so far it
has failed to live up to it."

We know what 'mass one-to-one
marketing' means, don't we? It means more surveillance marketing, more tracking, more despicable "ad tech."

If Mr. Pritchard really wants to do something valuable -- not just for our industry, but for society -- he will put his influence behind this issue.

September 07, 2017

For years anyone with a brain has known that Facebook "metrics" are a joke. They make shit up, imbeciles at agencies believe it, dimwit clients fund it, and - bingo - more ad money. Most famously, not long ago they inflated video viewing time on their site by as much as 80%.

Facebook "metrics" have a long illustrious history of being laughable bullshit. Anyone who believes their numbers is an idiot. Here's a lovely example.

According to a recently published report, Facebook says they reach 1.5 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 24. The problem here is that Sweden only has 1.2 million of 'em. If Facebook reached 100% of them, they'd still be 300,000 short. Sometimes I think Facebook's calculations are done by bloggers.

But today we have something even more delicious.

According to Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group, one of the industry's most respected media analysts, Facebook is at it again.

Facebook's Ads Manager says that the website is capable of reaching 41 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 24. The problem is there are only 31 million Americans of that age. But hey, what's 10 million people here or there?

You have to admire Facebook for their ability to reach 10 million imaginary 18-24 year olds. But as well as they do against imaginary 18-24 year olds, where they really excel is against non-existent 25-34 year olds. They reach 60 million of them. Unfortunately, there are only 45 million alive.

So it looks like, if your media target is the highly coveted imaginary American between the ages of 18-34, Facebook is the medium for you.

We always knew that Facebook was an amazing company, but their ability to reach non-existent people sets a new standard for the online ad industry -- which has always prided itself in imaginary advertising accomplishments.

Perhaps the only area in which Facebook can exceed its amazing use of metrics is its amazing use of language. When they were asked to explain the bullshit they were peddling, they had this to say about their numbers...

"They are designed to estimate how many people in a
given area are eligible to see an ad a business might run. They are not
designed to match population or census estimates."

September 05, 2017

My new book has just been released. It's called: BADMEN: How Advertising Went From A Minor Annoyance To A Major Menace.

Maybe it's just me, but I think surveillance marketing, the collection and selling of personal information, online tracking, and ad tech are existential dangers to free societies.

I think the monopolistic powers of some tech giants have gotten way out of control.

I think the idea that "the consumer is in charge" is the stupidest, most naive bullshit we've been fed since some dimwit decided that people wanted to "join the conversation" about their frozen fish sticks.

The book is about all these things.

It is also about how ad agency holding companies have turned into lapdogs for the corrupt and unsavory online ad industry and have, in the process, squandered their credibility.

Oh, and it's also about fraud, terrorism, hacking, fake news, kickbacks and everything else that makes the online ad business such a golden ray of sunshine. Best of all, it's under a hundred pages and under 6 bucks. If you're looking for advice on...

- Where to find the best cheesecake in Pyongyang
- President Trump’s surprising secret for longer lashes
- What to do if Gary Vaynerchuk calls your sister

... I'm afraid this ain't it.

But if you want to get pissed off about how we're being screwed blind by creeps, squids, and slugs, this just might be your ticket. So, here's what to do...

1. Go here now
2. Click "Add to cart"
3. Read the book
4. Go to Amazon and write a glowing review
5. Send a copy of the book to all your clients, friends, and dumb-ass colleagues who have bought into the online ad industry's horseshit
6. Fix yourself a martini
7. Fix yourself another martini

UPDATE:

BadMen was selected by Amazon as #1 "Hot New Prospect" in advertising and also #1 "New Release" in advertising. On its first day it got to be the #5 best seller in advertising. Thanks, people.

A few questions I've been getting:

1. Yes, it will be released in ebook format in a few weeks. But it's ok to buy the paper version. Amazon needs the money.2. Yes, it will be available in the UK. Apparently it takes a few days for US titles to get fully integrated into the UK system, but they assure me it will available by the end of the week.3. Same in European countries.

August 29, 2017

I know you're worried about KPIs and journeys and data-driven everything and dashboards but, honestly, there are bigger things to worry about.

Stephen Hawking says Earth is about over and we're going to need to leave here within a hundred years and find a new planet. And he's even smarter than a blogger.

So I thought it would be good to start a conversation about the kind of place we want. This way when we send out the interplanetary real estate agents to look for a new home they don't come back with some piece of shit planet for us.

Here are the things I think we should be looking for in a new planet:

- Plenty of free parking

- TVs that automatically turn off when you start snoring

- Lots of pretty flowers

- Super-hot nymphos who dig old bald guys

- Coffee shops with good cinnamon twists, not the crap they sell at Starbucks

- Dogs that don't shit

- And while we're at it, babies that don't shit

- And while we're at it, guys in front of you on the bathroom line at restaurants who don't shit

- Free beer on Wednesdays

- Invisible flying millennials

- Public transit without the public

- Bottomless martini glasses

- Lots of amazing banner ads. Only kidding

- Floors that give off a deadly electric shock when someone misses the urinal

August 22, 2017

Say what you want about Facebook, they have proven to be amazing salespeople.

When they started out they convinced gullible marketers that advertising was dying and that social media, in the form of conversations, was the future. Mark Zuckerberg said... “For the last 100 years media has been pushed out to people, but now marketers are going to be a part of the conversation. That is, until he discovered he could make billions pushing out advertising to people all over his platform and then Facebook quickly morphed into another channel for delivering traditional paid advertising. Doing a complete 180, a Facebook spokesperson had this to say “… if businesses want to make sure that people see their content, the best strategy is, and always has been, paid advertising.” Oh.

For several years they sold imbeciles in the marketing industry the fairytale that "likes" were worth something.

When every discount dentist was advertising on Facebook, they convinced marketers that the key to advertising success was getting clicks through "precision targeting." But when big advertisers balked, they changed their tune and decided advertising was all about that tired old thing, reach and frequency.

The point is, if there's anyone who knows how to blind the marketing industry with horseshit, it's Facebook. But now, they may actually be in a position to do the marketing world some good despite the industry's unwillingness to help itself.

According to Bloomberg, Facebook will lose over 3% of its teen audience next year -- the first year in its history it has lost any part of any audience. A few more years of this and Facebook may be forced to do the unthinkable -- start selling its clients on the value of an older target.

People over 50 are the most valuable consumer group in the history of marketing. But the television and radio industries, who have plenty of over-50's, have been totally incompetent at explaining to advertisers the incredible amount of money they are losing by ignoring this group.

The one and only media entity with the brains and skill to sell advertisers on the value of advertising to a mature target may very well be Facebook.

If so, it would be the second time Facebook stole billions of dollars in ad revenue from the asleep-at-the-wheel broadcast industry.

August 17, 2017

Monday in North America we will be experiencing a total eclipse of the sun.

A total eclipse occurs when God turns out the lights for few minutes because he has to do scheduled maintenance.

It is further proof (as if any were needed) that everything revolves around the earth. Otherwise how could airplanes get anywhere? Answer me that, Mr. Smart Guy!

A total eclipse is different from a total ellipse.

A total ellipse is a curve that is the locus of all points in the plane the sum of whose distances r_1 and r_2 from two fixed points F_1 and F_2 (the foci) separated by a distance of 2c is a given positive constant 2a. This results in the two-center bipolar coordinate equation r_1 + r_2 = 2a, where "a" is the semimajor axis and the origin of the coordinate system is at one of the foci. The corresponding parameter "b" is known as the semiminor axis.

But let's not dwell on the obvious.

The question for marketers is how will they leverage the eclipse to create experiential brand purpose that will authentically resonate with consumers to contextualize the millennial target's relevant alignment with your ecosystem? Either that or something about engagement or blockchains.

Here's why you don't want to miss the Total Solar Eclipse Insider Summit:

Learn best practices, case studies, and newest tactics which can all be applied to your eclipsifying strategies.

Craft Identity Graphs and translate them into people-based eclipse shit.

Use everything from dynamic content tools and embedded multimedia to
AI and cross channel data to serve what is relevant or at least edible.

Plus all kinds of horseshit about conversations!

So, don't be left in the dark (get it?) The Total Solar Eclipse Insider Summit is the one must-attend marketing event of the year. There won't be another total solar eclipse for another billion years or something.

And there won't be another Total Solar Eclipse Insider Summit until February.

August 16, 2017

When I print research results I try to use only 3rd party sources I trust. There are often no perfectly dispassionate sources and you have to use some discretion. But unlike idiot agencies, you shouldn't rely on Facebook to tell you what Facebook's metrics are.

Nevertheless, all research is modeling and interpretation so you always have to look at the source, the methodology and the credentials of the researchers before you take it too seriously.

Having said that, a report issued last week by Marketing Science is pretty astounding. It claims that overall, 43% of mobile ad impressions they studied were fraudulent.

This remarkable result is based on a study of 1 billion ad impressions from nearly 1,000 mobile apps.

Marketing Science is the consulting company of Dr. Augustine Fou, whose credentials are pretty impressive. Here's a summary of what they found. Click to enlarge.

Second, here's a summary of a study conducted by Dr. Fou on viewability. The bottom line is that he found only 41% of ads were viewable on open exchanges vs 91% for "good publishers" -- another ugly blemish for ad tech and programmatic buying.

August 08, 2017

Before we get to today's indisputable proof that I am a complete idiot we have a long way to go, so stay focused.

First we start with Oath. As you may know, Oath is the new name of Yahoo's parent company. Yahoo's parent company used to be called Yahoo, but when Yahoo sold off everything it owned that was worth anything the remaining dregs were branded "Oath."

Only marketing people could come up with a name as alarmingly dumb, but we'll save that for another day.

Oath now owns Yahoo, AOL, and a bunch of other rotting media carcasses.

Working at Oath is a guy named David Shing. Shing is known as "Shingy" in certain circles. Shingy's title at Oath is "Digital Prophet" the same modest title he held at AOL for many years.

I love Shingy. He is so monumentally full of shit that he makes bozos like me seem sensible in comparison. He also has amazing balls. Not just the little dimpled Titleist kind of balls, but big inflatable multi-colored beach ball kind of balls. Anyone who can get up in front of audiences and get away with the incomprehensible horseshit he spouts is my kinda guy.

Plus he has the greatest hair-do on the planet. Somewhere Between Jackie Kennedy and Phyllis Diller.

With that as background, I was reading a piece in The Drum a few days ago that was sent to me by the great Claudia Caplan. It had me very confused. It was an article entitled "‘Brand love must be core to the DNA of the brand’: Oath launches new video series exploring emotional connections"

The article stated that the video series was a group of "in-depth conversations" by Shingy with "industry prodigies" to "explore the nuanced aspects of what drives brand love..."

As you can imagine, within seconds I was strenuously exercising my gag reflex. Just for starters...

- Are there 2 companies anywhere in the world that have destroyed their brands more thoroughly than Yahoo and AOL? In what bizarre universe do they have the balls to lecture anyone on "brand love?"

- Is there a more profitless prophet anywhere on the planet than the fabulous Shingy? What have his brilliant futuristic insights done that have created a nickel's worth of value for AOL?

But what really blew me away was the fawning, gee-whiz nature of the article.

Shingy was referred to as a "digital prophet" without a hint of irony, as if he really was one.

It posed the question, "what can brands do to make their customers fall in love with them?" as if "brand love" was a recognized fact instead of a steaming pile of marketing droppings.

It promoted the participants in this festival of horseshit as "some of the most respected and interesting minds in media, marketing, and entertainment" who were offering "one-of-a-kind insights and rare perspectives on how brands can make that crucial emotional connection with the consumer."

I read the article three times in utter disbelief. It claimed Shingy "represents a nexus of brand and individual, thinker and marketer, and
analog and digital, making him the perfect choice to lead this
conversation."

What kind of journalism is this?

What the fuck is going on here? I asked myself.

And then I saw it. Greyed out, near the name of the so-called "reporter", were the words "Sponsored by: Oath." The whole thing was a fucking ad masquerading as journalism.

You'd think a cynical old fox like me wouldn't be fooled by the despicable, corrupt games the online media are playing. But I was.

Is it any wonder that nobody trusts a fucking word they read from online "news" sites.

August 02, 2017

Earlier this week, The Drum had a piece by Samuel Scott about marketing and millennials. As an add-on to the piece, Scott interviewed me about my thoughts on the subject. The following is a reprint of that interview.

Samuel Scott: One rule in marketing is to 'hook ​
them while they're young', so marketers have usually devoted some of
their budgets to that. After all, no one would want to purchase luxury
cars in middle age unless they had seen ads for those cars their entire
lives. How useful has this approach been in general over the decades?
Has the usefulness of this practice changed in recent years?

Bob Hoffman:
It depends on the category. People buy luxury cars in middle age that
didn’t even exist when they were young (Tesla). But some products (Coke)
are bought not because we saw an ad yesterday, but because of the ads
we’ve seen for 20 (or 30 or 40) years. For the most part, advertising
now because you think somebody’s going to buy your product in 20 years
is stupid. We see that all the time in the car industry.

​Scott:
A frequent comment about millennials is that they are still broke at
worst or underemployed at best following factors including the 2008
financial crisis. How valuable of a demographic segment are they today?
But even if they have less money today, will they not have more money
tomorrow? What is the problem with brand advertisers targeting them with
long-term goals in mind?

Scott: ​Of
course, 'millennials' may be a demographic segment but they may not be a
useful marketing segment. Why are there so many news articles and
marketing essays today that focus on what millennials want as though
they have a single identity and set of characteristics?

Hoffman:
There is just as much diversity within generations as there is between
generations. The idiotic idea that all millennials are this or all baby
boomers are that is just the stupid lazy thinking that makes most of
marketing a joke. Remember, marketing consultants and researchers have
to make a living. So every few years they have to come up with new
'generational' bullshit to sell to jackasses in marketing departments
and ad agencies.

Scott: Most news articles out
there portray millennials in a negative light. They are supposedly
narcissistic, selfie-absorbed snowflakes who are lazy and want trophies
for everything. I don't believe that. But why does everyone have those
negative perceptions?

Hoffman: You can always
find a component of any population that is lazy, self-absorbed and
narcissistic. Nothing new here. But because culture and technology
change, the manifestations of laziness, self-absorption and narcissism
change. Consequently there is always something that seems new to write
about. It’s horseshit, but it’s good copy.

​Scott:
​ Many marketers believe in segmentation. But is there not a case for
some B2C products and platforms with millions of users such as Snapchat
or Coca-Cola targeting a broad demographic group such as millennials?

Hoffman: Sure. At different age stages we use different types of products.

Scott:
From what I have read, baby boomers have all the money and are
projected to live a very long time. So, why do you think that marketers
ignore them?

Hoffman: I could write a text book
on this subject. In short, marketers ignore mature people because we
hate them. All the 'reasons' for ignoring older people are bullshit.
Ignoring mature people and obsessing over millennials is just narcissism
disguised as strategy. It is marketing by selfie-stick.

Scott: Can you cite any examples of brands losing sales or market share by focusing on millennials?

Hoffman:
Scion targeted millennials, although at the time people over 35 bought
88% of 'youth vehicles'. It succeeded in becoming the car brand with the
youngest owner population — and it went out of business.

Scott: What do you recommend brands do in the future in terms of generational targeting?

Hoffman:
I recommend they ignore the ignorant, lazy thinking of generational
cliches. Stop trying to hold a mirror up to your target and saying
“we’re just like you”. Advertising should be about the desirability of
your product, not your superficial assumptions about who I am.

Scott: What do you wish digital-focused millennials would know about traditional marketing and advertising?

Hoffman: I wish they knew how much they don’t know.

Scott:
Lastly, I myself straddle the border between Generation X and the
millennials. Generation X has always gotten lost in the debate. What do
you think of us?

Hoffman: I think you’re all lazy, self-absorbed and narcissistic.

***

In other news...
I have a new website which you are welcome to visit here.
The Australian Financial Review did a nice story on my misgivings about online advertising here.

July 17, 2017

Everything else marketing does is a footnote. This is why the current obsession with social media is largely misguided.

People
are far more likely to use social media to follow a brand they
currently use than a brand they don't. It is very reasonable to assume
that the vast majority of people following your brand on social media
are already customers. And usually they are a tiny component of your
user base - well under 1/10 of one percent.

Consequently,
most of the money you spend on social media is spent talking to a tiny
group of people who are probably already using your brand.

Every hour and dollar spent talking to these people is a dollar and hour not spent on acquiring new customers.

The
justification for this is usually some fuzzy nonsense about "brand
love." It comes from that infantile school of marketing that believes if
you shower people with social media or "content" - whatever the hell
that means -- they will fall in love with your brand.

Here
is a recent chart from McKinsey. Frankly, I can't vouch for the
methodology or the conclusions, but even if it's only half-true it
demonstrates pretty convincingly the daunting limitations of "brand
love."

There
is obviously nothing wrong with trying to communicate with some of your
customers through social media and trying to build a nice relationship.
It's a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to devote a small
component of a marketing budget toward that. If you do it well, your
objective should be modest -- to maintain or motivate brand preference.

However, spending a lot to chase the chimera of brand love
is usually a wasteful and largely empty exercise. The idea that social
media creates brand love is a fantasy. A recent article published in the
Harvard Business Review
reported that...

“Across 16 studies, we found no evidence that following a brand on social media changes people’s purchasing behavior."

I'm
sorry to tell you this, but most people just don't care that much about
your paper towels. And if some do, and they follow you on social media,
it's not likely to change their buying habits.

Unfortunately,
we have been lead to accept a very seductive philosophy based on the
fantasy of brand love. It is founded on the expensive, wasteful delusion
that people want to have "conversations" with brands, read and share
"content" about brands, co-create with brands, and several other flavors
of childish nonsense (for a great read on this subject, particularly
for creatives, I suggest
"Nobody Wants To Read Your Sh*t" by Steven Pressfield.)

Our
brands are critically important to us marketers but in the vast
majority of cases not very important at all to most consumers.

Instead of spending a lot of money trying to convince a small number of people to love your brand, your money would be much more wisely spent trying to convince a lot of people to like it.

I'll be taking some time off from the blog for vacation and to finish up my new book. See you in a few weeks.

"Caustic Yet Truthful"

"The Most provocative Man In Advertising"

"Savage Critiques Of Digital Hype"

"Fabulously Irreverent"

CONTACT BOB

Over 60,000 people have watched Bob's talk at Advertising week, Europe

You Are Caller Number...

Click Image

Ad Contrarian Says:

"Creative people make the ads. Everyone else makes the arrangements."

"Delusional thinking isn't just acceptable in marketing today -- it's mandatory.""Good ads appeal to us as consumers. Great ads appeal to us as humans."

"Social Media: Tens of millions of disagreeable people looking to make trouble."

"As an ad medium, the web is a much better yellow pages and a much worse television."

"Sometimes success in the advertising business is about sitting quietly and letting clients proceed with their hysterical delusions."

"Marketers prefer precise answers that are wrong to imprecise answers that are right."

"Brand studies last for months, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and generally have less impact on business than cleaning the drapes."

"The idea that the same consumer who was frantically clicking her TV remote to escape from advertising was going to merrily click her mouse to interact with it is going to go down as one of the great advertising delusions of all time."

"Nobody really knows what "creativity" is. Every year thousands of people take a pilgrimage to find out. This involves flying to Cannes, snorting cocaine, and having sex with smokers."

"Marketers habitually overestimate the attraction of new things and underestimate the power of traditional consumer behavior."

"We don’t get them to try our product by convincing them to love our brand. We get them to love our brand by convincing them to try our product."

"In American business, there is nothing stupider than the previous generation of management."

"If the message is right, who cares what screen people see it on? If the message is wrong, what difference does it make?"

"The only form of product information on the planet less trustworthy than advertising is the shrill ravings of web maniacs."

"There's no bigger sucker than a gullible marketer convinced he's missing a trend."

"All ad campaigns are branding campaigns. Whether you intend it to be a branding campaign is irrelevant. It will create an impression of your brand regardless of your intent."

"Nobody ever got famous predicting that things would stay pretty much the same."